Laserfiche WebLink
who would like to access the CRDSS from their desks. Connection to CRDSS may be a problem if <br />agencies do not have Ethernet or the like to use the Mosaic software. <br />Economic Factors <br />Those surveyed seemed relatively unconcerned or uninterested in economic factors. Those who <br />responded, however, saw nothing earthshaking about charging fees, some indicating that these fees <br />should be contingent on amount and frequency of use. No one looked at funding as an entrepreneurial <br />activity. Economic benefits of saving time and getting better information were frequently cited as <br />benefits. <br />A prime motivator for data sharing is the initial cost of developing the databases. The prospect for data <br />sharing was seen a way to reduce the large costs for an external agency to develop data. It seems <br />agencies are sharing in database development using interagency agreements which address initial <br />database development as well as continuing arrangement for maintenance and upgrades to the data. This <br />mode of collaboration would appear to have significant potential for the CRDSS. <br />The funding question is important since costs will be incurred to keep the system running and to improve <br />it as it becomes integrated into State water decision processes. The funding of this cost will be <br />contingent upon its use. The more the CRDSS is used, the more likely will funds be available to keep it <br />running and expand it. It was difficult for some to respond to this question without a specific cost <br />schedule in front of them. Subscription rates for the DWR Satellite System and the South Platte DSS <br />were mentioned as being reasonable. <br />Logistic Factors <br />Training needs were stated in a straightforward manner. General training desires were for 1) training <br />workshops of 1-day to 1-week duration, 2) an on-line tutorial and help section, 3) a hard text manual, and <br />4) an ?expert? available nearby or by phone. It was noted that the training should be tied to user job <br />activities to maintain its direct relevance. On the order of one week per year of training would be <br />expected and likely available for a general user. This, provided the on-line tutorials were available. <br />More lengthy training may be required for advanced modeling of water rights. Access to an ?expert? <br />was cited as desirable for intermittent troubleshooting and special problems. Specific needs ranged from <br />how to get on the system to learning specific models on the system. There were several requests that the <br />training be of a ?hands-on? nature and related to job functions. <br />The main response to maintenance and evolution of the CRDSS was that if it is usable and productive, <br />then the external users would be interested in participating in its maintenance and evolution. <br />Considerations of cost sharing, data sharing and the like as discussed above apply. <br />Agency Interactions <br />On the question of CRDSS as a means to further interagency cooperation, the respondents indicated a <br />desire for people from different agencies to meet and share water information and to learn their place in <br />the wider scheme of water issues. CRDSS may be an instrument to facilitate this kind of interaction <br />given that it can be an evolving system. There appear to be some fundamental issues here concerning the <br />basic roles of the agencies involved relations between the CWCB and DWR, as well as between these <br />agencies and the external agencies which respond to the State?s regulations. The responses indicated a <br />desire to consider such topics in the future. <br />12 <br />A 275 01.09.95 1.19-1 Johnson, Grigg, Tang <br />